As always, the choice of OS depends on what you need to do with it.
Linux has long been the operating system of choice for a great many web servers
and other operations where normal garden-variety computer users do not come into
contact with its GUI.
With little or no prior Linux experience myself, I've installed Red Hat 8.2 (not
the latest) on an older personal computer inside of an hour. In that time, the
Linux install determined EXACTLY which hardware was inside the computer, set
itself up automatically to work on my network, installed all the major software
modules. Then I needed another half hour or so to set up Windows-compatible
file and print servers. Linux has OpenOffice (which works a lot like Microsoft
Office and reads/writes Office data files), the Mozilla browser, mySQL for data
base access, the GIMP PhotoShop workalike, CD burning software, and lots of
other open source software applications. If you use any sort of PostScript
printer, you can depend on full Linux support for it. The KDE and Gnome
graphical user interfaces look and feel a lot like Windows prior to the Cartoon
Network default interface of Windows XPee.
I have not messed around yet with Lindows, a set of software that sits on top of
Linux to provide a near-complete Windows environment to run your favorite
Windows programs.
On the other hand, if you MUST use some package that runs only on Windows, if
you MUST have flawless data interchange with other computers running Microsoft
Office, if people are not self-sufficient and need serious retraining to use a
new GUI, then Microsoft has you by the short hairs. In addition, because of
their open source nature, Linux apps have some rough spots and behavioral
quirks. As an example, I often use an open source CD burning software (even
under Windows) because it works more reliably with more CD-RWr drives than any
commercial product, but its user interface is worse than butt ugly.
That is the dilemma faced by the computer users in 2003. Many people hate
Microsoft's unstable and unreliable software, extortion through license fees,
hardware obsoleted by new operating system releases, and sleazy changing
on-the-fly contracts and license agreements, but they are locked into Microsoft
products, at least for the present.
Linux and Open Source movement have gained a lot of momentum in the last couple
of years, especially in Europe where Microsoft does not have a protectionist
government to run its interference. I expect that Mario Monti, head of the EEC
anti-trust unit, will lead the EEC to levy some very serious anti-trust
sanctions against Microsoft, and this will have a major impact on the industry.
Me? Right now I have to straddle the fence, because I provide service and
support to a great many users of Microsoft products. In between times, I'm
racing like mad to be up to speed on Linux.
Well, you asked. Did you intend to stir the pot with your question?
.... Ben Myers
On 11 Oct 2003 06:56:04 -0700,
(CRM) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I happened to read an article in www.techieindex.com , which reads-
>Torvalds starts locking down next Linux . Linux leader Linus
>Torvalds has moved the development of the upcoming 2.6 kernel of the
>open-source operating system to a new phase aimed solely at making the
>heart of the OS less likely to crash. Can I have your views
>on this?
>
>Recently I also found some magazines saying that Enterprises are
>migrating from Windows to Linux. In order to save the maintenance
>cost? What do you think about it? Is this a good choice?
>
>Regards,
>Scott
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
